•Us? 



1234 
U54 
opy 1 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/claimsgrowingout03unit 



L234 
54 



sv 1 Congress, l H0 USE OF REPRESENTATIVES. { Report 

»y * .Session. [ 1 No. 361. 



CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 



October 7, 1919. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered 

to be printed. 



Mr. Dent, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the 

following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. J. Res. 80.] 

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the joint 
resolution (H. J. Res. 80) to correct an error in the wording of the 
rojpriation of $71,000 made in the act approved July 9, 1918, and 
to authorize the Secretary of War to pa}^ said sum to respective par- 
ties entitled thereto, having considered the same, report. thereon with 
inendation that it do pass. 

House Committee on Military Affairs favorably reported a 

measure during the session of the Sixty-fifth Congress. It is 

intended by this resolution to include those persons wounded as well 

>ply to those killed growing out of the late insurrection in 

A copy of Report No. 1040, Sixty-fifth Congress, third 

iion, is herewith appended and made a part of this report. 

[House Report No. 1040, Sixty-fifth Congress, third session.] 

The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the 
oint resolution (S. J. Res. 175) to correct an error in the wording of 
the appropriation of $71,000 made in the act approved July 9, 1918, 
and to authorize the Secretary of War to pay said sum to respective 
parties entitled thereto, having considered the same, report thereon 
with a recommendation that it do pass. 

The act referred to in the said Senate joint resolution reads as fol- 
lows : 

Persons killed on Mexican border : To enable the Secretary of War to pay to 
the heirs or the legal representatives of citizens of the United States killed on 
American side of the line at El Paso, Texas; Douglas, Arizona, and other 
s found and ascertained by the commissioners appointed pursuant to 
the Joint resolution directing the Secretary of War to investigate the claims 
of American citizens for damages suffered within American territory and 
Lng out of the late insurrection in Mexico," approved August ninth, nine- 
hundred and twelve, the sum of $71,000. 

This provision is incorporated in the annual appropriation bill for 
the support of the Army, approved July 9, 1918. 

In support of the measure there is attached hereto and made a part 
of this report letter of transmittal, together with report f commis- 
sioners authorized under the law. 



\-IZ34- 
454- 



Letter of Transmittal. 

War Department, 

Washington, December 5, 1912. 
The Speaker or the House of Representatives. 

Sir: In response to Senate joint resolution No. 103, directing the 
Secretary of War to investigate the claims of American citizens 
damages suffered within. American territory and growing out of the 
late insurrection in Mexico, etc., I have the honor to transmit here- 
with reports of the commission appointed by paragraps 27, Special 
Order No. 205, current series, War Department, to investigate sucr 
claims. 

Similar reports have been transmitted to the President pr tem- 
pore, United States Senate. 
Very respectfully, 

Henry L. Stimson. 

Secretary of War. 
2 

&• Of J. 
OCT 2f 19|9 



CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 



Washington, D. C, November 29, 1912. 
The Adjutant General of the Army, 

Washington, D. G. 
*Sir: The commission appointed by paragraph 27, Special Orders, 
No. 205, War Department, August 30, 1912, has the honor to submit 
herewith its report, as required under the terms of joint resolution 
No. 48, approved August 9, 1912, for submission to the Congress 
through the Secretary of War. 

For reasons of convenience and completeness the resolution and 
order under which the commission acted are quoted in full : 

JOINT RESOLUTION Directing the Secretary of War to investigate the claims of 
American citizens for damages suffered within American territory and growing out of 
the late insurrection in Mexico. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, 
aorized and directed to make, or cause to be made under his direction, a full 
and thorough investigation of each and all claims of American citizens and of 
persons domiciled in the United States which may be called to his attention by 
claimants) or their attorneys for damages for injuries to their persons or prop- 
received by them or by those of whom claimants may be the legal repre- 
sentatives, within the boundaries of the United States, by means of gunshot 
wounds or otherwise inflicted by Mexican Federal or insurgent troops during 
the late insurrection in Mexico in the year nineteen hundred and eleven. 

For the purpose of such investigation the Secretary of War is authorized to 
appoint a commission of three officers of the Army, one of whom shall be an 
inspector general. Such commission shall have authority to subpoena witnesses, 
administer oaths, and to take evidence on oath relating to any such claim and 
to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers 
in any such proceeding by application to the district court of the United States 
for the district within which any session of the commission is held, which 
court is hereby empowered and directed to make all orders and issue all proc- 
esses necessary for that purpose, and said commission shall have all the powers 
conferred by law upon inspectors general of the United States Army in the per- 
formance of their duties. Such commission shall report to Congress, through 
the Secretary of War, as soon as practicable, its findings of fact upon each and 
all the claims presented to it and its conclusion as to the justice and equity 
thereof and as to the proper amount of compensation or indemnity thereupon. 

Approved, August 9, 1912. 



Special Orders, \ Wae Department, 

No. 205. J Washington, August 30, 1912. 

[Extract.] 

****** 
27. Under the authority conferred by a joint resolution approved August 9, 
1912, a commission to consist of Lieut. Col. Francis J. Kernan, adjutant general, 
Maj. Eli A. Helmick, inspector general, First Lieut. Aristides Moreno, Twenty- 
eighth Infantry, is appointed to meet in this city at the call of the senior mem- 
ber of the commission for the purpose of making an investigation of all claims 



4 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION" IN MEXICO. 

of American citizens and of persons domiciled in the United States for damages 
suffered by them within the boundaries of the United States and growing out 
of the insurrection in Mexico in the year 1911. 

The proceedings of the commission will be conducted and its report made in 
accordance with the provisions of the joint resolution cited and instructions 
of the Secretary of War. 

Lieut. Moreno is appointed special disbursing officer of the commission. 

******* 
By order of the Secretary of War: 

Leonard Wood, 
Major General, Chief of Staff. 
Official : 

Geo. Andrews, 

The Adjutant General. 

Immediately after its creation the commission caused to be inserted 
in three issues upon alternate days in the Douglas (Ariz.) Dispatch 
and the El Paso (Tex.) Times the following advertisement: 

Notice. 

mexican revolution damage claimants take notice. 

Whereas the Congress of the United States passed a joint resolution which 
was approved August 9, 1912, and which authorized the Secretary of War 
appoint a commission of three officers of the Army to make a full and thorough 
investigation of each and every claim of American citizens and of persons 
property within the boundaries of the United States by means of gunshot, 
wounds or otherwise inflicted by Mexican federal or insurgent troops during 
late insurrection in Mexico in the year 1911 ; and 

Whereas a commission has been duly appointed by the Secretary of 
as above authorized, consisting of Lieut. Col. Francis J. Kernan, adjiv 
general, Maj. Eli A. Helmick, inspector general, and First Lieut. Aristides 
Moreno, Twenty-eighth Infantry; now all claimants falling within the above 
description are advised and requested to file their respective claims at the 
earliest practicable date with the said commission, at its office, room 258, War 
Department, Washington, D. C. 

In filing claims the following rules should be observed : 

1. To be in duplicate, properly dated and signed, and verified upon oath or 
affirmation and setting forth: 

2. The age. place of birth, present residence, post-office address, and occupa- 
tion of ths claimant and his residence, nationality, and occupation at the tin^e 
his claim had its origin. 

8. The amount of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the kind 
or kinds and amount of property lost, destroyed, or injured, or the kind and 
degree of injury if the claim is founded upon damage to person, and the fa 
and circumstances attending the loss or injury out of which the claim arisen 

4. Whether the claimant was the sole and absolute owner of the prop- 
damaged when the damage arose and whether he is now the sole owner o; 
claim, or, if any other person is now interested therein, the name and address 
of such other person and the nature and extent of his interest and how, when, 
and by what means and for what consideration the transfer of interest- 
rights, if such was made, took place between the parties. 

5. Whether the claimant, his representative, or any person interested in the 
claim, or any part thereof, has ever received any indemnification for the wl 

or part of the alleged loss or injury ; and if so, the nature and amount of the 
indemnification and when, from whom, and by whom the same was received. 

6. Documentary evidence, if submitted, should be duly authenticated, and the 
whole claim and its accompanying papers should be in the English language. 

7. All claims hereunder must be submitted to the commission not later than 
October 10, 1912. 

Thereafter the commission met in Washington, D. C, on Septem- 
ber 30, and after such preliminary work as could be done in 
city proceeded, about October 10, to El Paso, Tex., where sessions 
were held to hear evidence in the claims arising there and there- 
abouts. Upon the completion of these hearings the commission pro- 



CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 5 

ceeded, on November 1, to Douglas, Ariz., where similar sessions 
were held to hear the evidence in support of the six claims having 
origin in that city. Afterwards the commission returned to El Paso, 
where two additional claims were presented and heard, and upon 
the conclusion of these cases the commission returned to Washington, 
D. C, where it arrived on the 14th instant. To complete the narra- 
tive of its movements it may be added that members of the commis- 
sion visited Indianapolis, Ind., Cleveland, Ohio, Atlanta, Ga., and 
San Antonio, Tex., for the purpose of prosecuting inquiries incident 
to the complete investigation of the claims in question. 

Twenty-four claims in all were brought to the attention of the 
commission. Of these, one, that of Mrs. Jennie W. Preston, had been 
settled to the satisfaction of the claimant, through the Mexican 
consul at El Paso, and was never pressed upon the commission, 
while another, that of Miss Frances M. Keade, appeared upon its 
face to be beyond the scope of the commission's authority, having 
arisen in Mexico, and so was not investigated. 

The remaining 22 claims were investigated as fully as practicable 
and they divide themselves naturally into two classes. The first 
class embraces two cases only, those of Converse and Blatt, and they 
are founded upon the alleged kidnapping of the parties upon Ameri- 
can territory and their subsequent harsh treatment. The other class 
is that of injuries arising from bullet wounds and resulting in death 
or some disability. And this latter class embraces two distinct 
kinds of claimants, i. e., those claiming as American citizens and those 
claiming as domiciled aliens. 

The commission, in considering the form of its report, arrived at 
the conclusion that it would conduce to clearness and to brevity if the 
general situation out of which these claims arose and the general 
considerations which should govern their disposition were treated in 
one comprehensive report, leaving the particular facts and conclu- 
sions as to each separate claim to be embodied in separate reports, 
one for each claim. That plan has been followed, and this, which is 
the general report, is accompanied by the several individual reports, 
all taken together constituting the complete report of the commis- 
sion as required by Congress. 

It will be observed that the joint resolution requires the commis- 
sion to report — 

Its findings of facts * * * and its conclusions as to the justice and equity 
thereof and as to the proper amount of compensation or indemnity thereupon. 

n the execution of this part of this task the commission has become 
convinced that in some cases, all the relevant facts and circumstances 
being duly weighed, no compensation can be justly sought from or 
through the Government of the United States, notwithstanding the 
undoubted fact that injury was received; but as this report is ad- 
visory only and not conclusive, the commission has in every case, 
except in those of Converse and Blatt, assessed the amount of dam- 
age believed to have been sustained. It follows from this procedure 
that if the conclusions of the commission as to the justice, equity, or 
propriety of the claims be not concurred in by the authority which 
must make final disposition thereof, the reports will enable a 
prompter settlement to be effected than might otherwise be the case. 



6 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 

I. THE CASES OF CONVERSE AND BLATT. 

The evidence and the circumstances of these two cases are sub- 
stantially the same. These claimants are both young, native-born 
American citizens. Early in 1911 Converse met an agent of the 
Mexican revolutionary party, which party was acting under the 
general leadership of Francisco Madero, in Los Angeles, Cal. The 
two struck a bargain, under which Converse was to enter the service 
of the revolutionary army in Mexico, to be commissioned therein, 
and to receive a stated salaiy. Pursuant to this agreement Converse 
entered that service and continued in it until the day of his kid- 
naping, February 20, 1911. He was employed chiefly as a mes- 
senger between the insurgents, operating near Juarez, Mexico, oppo- 
site El Paso, Tex., and their agents in the latter city. On one of his 
visits to El Paso he met Mr. Blatt, talked over the matter of his 
service, and took Blatt to the revolutionary junta living in El Paso. 
As a result Blatt went next day over into Mexico and joined the in- 
surgent forces. He denies having made a definite bargain or re- 
ceived a commission, but he admits meeting the junta, and as a 
result he crossed into Mexico and identified himself with the forces 
seeking the overthrow of the Diaz Government. He was assigned 
to the duty of gathering supplies, by requisition or otherwise, from 
the neighboring country for the insurgent forces. Converse had 
been sent to carry correspondence to the revolutionary agents in 
El Paso, and Blatt got permission to accompany him. Com 
avows his intention to return and rejoin the insurgents, but 
declares he had had enough and proposed to remain in the United 
States, once safely there. The two were observed and followed by 
Federal Mexican troops, but succeeded in crossing the Rio Grande 
at a point where it is the boundary; and having achieved, as they 
thought, a safe place, they rested near the river on the American 
side. There they were set upon by Mexicans — undoubtedly sent by 
the Federal Mexican officers — captured, and taken across the river 
into Mexico. They were carried as prisoners from Guadalupe, Mex- 
ico, to Juarez, Mexico, and incarcerated in the common jail for two 
months. In passing from Guadalupe to Juarez the road crosses once 
or twice into American territory. Converse called the attention of 
his captors to this fact while on the United States side and demanded 
release, but was refused. At the end of two months both prisoners 
were released by the personal order of President Diaz. There were 
circumstances of humiliation and discomfort connected with then 
captivity. Upon these facts each claimant demands $50,000 by way 
of damages. 

Mr. Converse, testifying in his own behalf, said : 

A. * * * I had no intention of joining the revolution until after I got 
to Los Angeles. I met in Los Angeles a man who was connected with the 
lution, and he offered me a position and a salary to drill the troops and to 
instruct the troops. 

Q. Did he profess to be an agent of Orozco or Madero or those connected 
with this revolution? — A. He professed to be an agent of the Madero revolu- 
tion ; I knew that he was, through a signed commission ; I afterwards identi- 
fied the signature of Mr. Madero. 

Q. And did you strike a bargain with him that you would become a drill- 
master? — A. Yes, sir. (See p. 33, testimony in Converse case.) 



CLAIMS GEOWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 7 

Mr. Blatt, testifying in his own behalf, said : 

Q. When had you entered the service?— A. We went to the junta here in 
Paso one evening; I met several of their emissaries here, and the next 
morning— we stayed that evening— and the next morning we rode in a wagon 
to Ysleta, which is about 12 miles down the valley— we passed it yesterday— 
and stayed there that day; the following morning we rode on horseback to 
the town of Zaragoza, Mexico, where we joined the forces there. 

Q. Whose forces?— A. The Mexican forces— the revolutionists— the Ma- 
deristas. 

Q. What sort of an engagement had you made with the junta here in El 
aso?— A. Nothing but to go over; I made my engagement merely to go over, 
and did not ask anything of a reward, or what we would be paid, or anything ; 
I just wanted to go over. 

Q. What was your purpose in going over to the other side?— A. I often won- 
der at it now myself; that is, it was wholly for the little excitement. 

Q. Were you going over there on a hunting trip? — A. No, sir- £roin°- over 
there to fight. 

Q. Going for the purpose of joining the insurrectos, were vou not'— A Yes 
sir. * ' 

Q. You did join them? — A. Yes. 

Q. Did they accept your services?— A. Yes. (See testimony of Mr Blatt nn 
15-16, Blatt case.) ' yy ' 

Section 9 of the act approved March 4, 1909, provides that 

Every citizen of the United States who, within the territory or jurisdiction 
thereof, accepts and exercises a commission to serve a foreign prince. State, 
colony, district, or people, in war, by land or by sea, against any prince, State' 
colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, shall be 
fined not more than $2,000 and imprisoned not more than three years. 

Considering the testimony of the claimants in connection with all 
the other facts and circumstances brought out in the evidence, the 
commission is convinced that both these claimants were engaged, at 
the time when their claims had their origin, in violating the neu- 
trality laws of their own country. If this be so, they are barred from 
asking that Government whose laws they were violating to take upon 
itself the task of seeking compensation for any damage or injury 
which may have come to them primarily as a result of their own 
wrongdoing. 

In the case of the Monitor, where a claim against the Japanese 
Government was in question, Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, said : 

Clearly, therefore, this department is precluded from pressing in any manner 
upon the attention of a foreign government a claim growing out of transactions 
obnoxious to the laws of the United States or possessing other features that 
forbid its approval and promotion by the official representative of this govern- 
ment. (Moore's Int. Law Digest, 6, p. 620.) 

And again the same Secretary, in reference to the claim of one 
Pelletier against Haiti, said : 

On the general question of turpitude of cause of action as barring the pres- 
ent claim, I am now prepared to give an emphatic, and, I trust, final decision 
Even were we to concede that these outrages in Haitian waters were not within 
Halt inn jurisdiction, I do now affirm that the claim of Pelletier against Haiti 
on the facts exhibited must be dropped and dropped peremptorily and imme- 
diately by the Government of the United States. "The principle of public 
policy," said Lord Mansfield in Holman v. Johnston, Cowper's Rep., 343 "is 
this : Ex dolo malo non oritur actio." No court will lend its aid to a' man' who 
founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. * * * By 
.innumerable rulings under the Ptoman common law, as held by nations holding 
Latin traditions, and under the common law as held in England and the United 
States, has this principle been applied. * * * 

But even if it should be thought that the acts of Converse and 
Blatt as shown by the evidence would not sustain an indictment 



8 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 

under the penal statute above cited, it must still be held that their 
admitted conduct estops them from asking the United States Govern- 
ment to press their claim upon Mexico. They were both actively 
engaged in the service of a revolutionary force whose avowed object 
was to overthrow the established government of Mexico. As armed 
revolutionists they took upon themselves the hazards of war. They 
were liable to be killed in action ; and, on other other hand, they were 
liable to kill in action soldiers of the Republic of Mexico. These 
rights and liabilities could not flow from American citizenship If 
slain in a fair fight, this Government would have no duty to demand 
redress in the premises; if they killed, in like manner, their oppo- 
nents, they could not do so as American citizens primarily, bu j only 
as Mexican revolutionists. Otherwise such killing would be murder. 
It is plain that these claimants, having taken upon themselves the 
character of Mexican revolutionists, with a new set of duties, rights, 
and liabilities, put in abeyance for the time being at least their dis- 
tinctive rights, liabilities, and duties as American citizens. They 
were fighting not as citizens of this country, but as Mexican insur- 
gents, and they were pursued not as Americans, but as rebels in arms 
against the established Government. The pursuit should have 
stopped at the boundary, not because the crossing of the Rio Grande 
divested Converse and Blatt of their hostile and capturable qualities, 
but because to go further was to violate the sovereignty of a neigh- 
boring country. Crossing the river did not reinvest these claimants 
with any of those individual rights peculiar to American citizenship, 
which they had voluntarily put aside by enlisting in the Mexican 
revolution; on the contrary, the very character of their mission re- 
quired them to cross to the soil of the United States, and in so do 
they were carrying out an act of warfare against the Government of 
the Republic of Mexico. The circumstances of their seizure consti- 
tuted a clear and a grave violation of the sovereign rights of the 
United States. 

The commission believes their capture on American soil to have 
been deliberate and to have been instigated by the military author- 
ities of Mexico, a part of whose forces were drawn up on the southern 
bank of the river, to receive the two captured Americans, and which, 
in fact, did receive and hold them immediately after those e eeting 
the seizure had brought them to the Mexican side. The whole pro- 
cedure was an international wrong done to this country; but the 
individuals captured were captured not as American citizens, but as 
active insurgents in the very act of carrying out a hostile mission. 
The case would have been the same if the parties captured had bean 
native-born Mexicans instead of Americans. In either case the pur- 
suit should have stopped at the boundary: in either case the capture 
on this side was internationally wrong, but in both cases the injury 
is a public one directed against the sovereignty of the United States. 
It was open to our Government to demand the release of those c 
tured, the punishment of those involved in the capture, and such 
further international redress as might be deemed proper by those 
charged with that phase of public duty; but as to these claim ;uv;b. 
capture was one of the fates they challenged when they embarl 
in their Mexican insurgent enterprise, and the time and place of 
capture, while making for an offense to this Government, grounds 
in them no claim for pecuniary damages which this Government 



CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 9 

should undertake to press. If they have any just claim for compen- 

on it should be directed by them to the conscience and gratitude 

of the present Government of Mexico, whose cause, they made their 

The principle here set out is not novel. It was acted upon in the 
case of Capt. John Clark, who took out letters of marque from 
Uruguay and cruised against the vessels and property of Spain and 
Portugal upon the high seas. A part of his booty was taken by a 
public-owned vessel of Colombia, and his heirs came in time to press 
a claim growing out of this seizure before mixed commissions ap- 
ited by the United States and New Granada, Venezuela, and 
ador, these States being a part of that Eepublic of Colombia 
which had made the original seizure. In all cases the claims were 
finally disallowed, and the grounds upon which this action was had 
were, in principle, those above outlined. One of the commission said : 

I grant that the conduct of the Venezuelan squadron and the decisions of the 
Venezuelan prize court were unjustifiable upon any principle of international 
and that a great outrage was committed on the sovereign rights and inter- 
of Uruguay: but what is that to the United States? Whatever losses and 
damages Capt. Clark sustained in the premises he sustained, not in his char- 
acter as a citizen of the United States, but as an officer in the service of the 
Banda Oriental Republic (Uruguay), cruising under her flag, for her benefit, 
and against her enemies. If, therefore, the spoliations committed by the 
Venezuelan Navy, and sanctioned by the Venezuelan courts, entitle him to 
indemnification, this indemnification must be claimed by the Banda Oriental 
Republic, now the Republic of Uruguay, and not by the United States — the 
war was with Uruguay and Spain and Portugal ; the United States were neutral ; 
nor so Capt. Clark. Although a native citizen of the United States, he had 
identified himself with one of the belligerents in violations, as I shall presently 
^liow, of the laws and treaties of his own native country. He was cruising 
under the Uruguay flag against the commerce of two nations with which the 
country of his birth was at peace. He must, therefore, abide by the conse- 
quences * * *. A party who asks for redress must present himself with 
clean hands. His cause of action must not be based on an offense against the 
very authority to whom be appeals for redress * * *. He who engages in 
an expedition prohibited by the laws of his country must take the consequences. 
He may win or he may lose. But that is his own risk ; he can not, in case of 
loss seek indemnity through the instrumentality of the government against 
which he has offended. (Moore's Int. Arbitrations, pp. 2734—2739.) 

Other commissioners expressed similar views, and one of them, 
Mr. Findlay, in the course of his opinion, quoted from Mr. Justice 
Taney in Williams v. Gibbes, where, having reference to a claim 
founded on a contract to furnish advances and supplies to a military 
expedition fitting out against Mexico, then belonging to Spain, the 
justice said: 

Of course it was their duty [the commission's] not to allow any claim for 
services rendered to Mexico or money advanced for its use by American citizens 
olation of their duty to their own Government or in disobedience to its 
laws. For the Government would have been unmindful of its own duty to the 
United States if it had used its powers and influence to enforce a claim of that 
description, or had sanctioned it by treaty. 

Col. Young's case, reported in Moore's International Arbitrations, 
pages 2752-2753, is almost exactly in point. Col. Young accepted a 
commission in the Mexican Army in its war against Spain, and was 
killed. The commissioners say: 

Col. Young, by accepting a commission in the Mexican service and actually 
engaging in the war then in progress, forfeited all claim to the protection of 
his own Government. He lost, for the time being at least, and so far as he 



10 CLAIMS GEO WING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 

was connected with that service, the character of an American citizen, A r 
turn to the United States might have restored his national character ; but while 
he was in Mexico, engaged in her service as an officer in her army, he 
to be a citizen of "his native country and could claim none of the bent 
suiting from that character. 

So in Green's case, the umpire declares that — 

the claimant must be considered to have been actually employed by and in the 
service of the Mexican Government, and pro tanto a Mexican citizen during the 
time of his services. ^ 

The grievance of the United States against Mexico in these cases is 
not that the particular persons — Converse and Blatt — should have 
been captured as they were, but that anybody should have been kid- 
napped upon our soil by agents of a foreign government. 

IT or the reasons stated the commission does not recommend any 
amount as due these claimants from or through this government. 
The commission visited in person the scene of this kidnapping, and 
from this inspection, from the evidence adduced in the case, and 
from consulting the treaties between Mexico and the United States 
bearing upon the boundaries of the two countries, it is satisfied that 
Converse and Blatt were seized upon United States territory. 

II. THE CASES ARISING IN EL PASO, TEX., AND DOUGLAS, ARIZ., FROM GUN- 
SHOT WOUNDS INFLICTED FROM THE MEXICAN SIDE OF THE BORDCR. 

To understand how these injuries were received, some <. 
description of the situation of El Paso and Douglas and of the 
of May 8, 9, and 10, 1911, at Juarez, Mexico, and of April 13 and IT, 
1911, at Agua Prieta, Mexico, is necessary. 

El Paso, Tex., lies directly on the Rio Grande River op; 
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The river between these two cities is 
spanned by several bridges, railroad and others, and at some sei 
is nearly if not quite dry. Both cities grow down close to the river 
banks so that between the two municipalities the distance ^s not 
great. El Paso claims some 30,000 inhabitants, and the greater num- 
ber of these is to be found in the more compact part of the city 
and within about two miles of the dividing river. Its situation with 
reference to the bounding river and to Ciudad Juarez will be better 
understood from the map hereto attached as Appendix A. Some 
of the principal streets of the city will be seen to run nearly p< 
pendicular to the river front. 

On May 8, 1911, some of the subordinate leaders under Mr. Maclero 
began an attack on Juarez, moving down under shelter of the river 
bank and so getting close to the heart of the city without much ex- 
posure. At the same time they thus became interposed between El 
Paso and Juarez in such fashion that a fire from the Federal 
son of the town, directed at the assailants along the river fr< 
must needs be in the direction of El Paso. It is hinted by some of 
the attorneys that the United States, having formally warned the 
garrison of Juarez not to fire in the direction of United States ter- 
ritory — and this fact being known to the assailants — they purposely 
attacked the river front so as to embarrass the defense. However 
this may be, the defense for the better part of thrive days, May 8, 9, 
and 10, did fire in such direction as to cover the greater part of 
El Paso with a flight of bullets, resulting in numerous casualties. 

Douglas, Ariz., and Agua Prieta, Mexico, face each other across 
the international boundary line, which here runs across a flat plain. 



CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 11 

They are separated by an open strip about one-quarter of a mile 
wide. An assault on Agua Prieta by insurgents occurred April 13, 
1911, and was made from a line near the boundary, so that in firing 
upon the assailants in the Federal garrison was bound to fire toward 
and into Douglas. Again on April 17, when the Federal force un- 
dertook to recapture Agua Prieta, the assault was directed from the 
southeast so that the bullets in their flight to the northwest were 
certain to fall into and about Douglas. On each occasion there were 
resulting casualties on the American side, upon which are founded 
six claims presented to this commission. There is appended hereto, 
and marked B, a map of Douglas, Ariz., which will further illustrate 
its inevitable exposure. 

The modern high-power military rifle has a maximum range of 
approximately 3 miles. Upon the maps of El Paso and Douglas 
herewith there are drawn in red ink circles having their centers 
approximately near the center of the defense in Juarez and Agua 
Prieta, respectively. It will be seen that these circles embrace, in 
the case of El Paso, the greater part of the inhabited town and in 
the case of Douglas practically the whole city. Appended also to 
this report and made a part hereof is some general testimony taken 
by the commission and detailing the events of those days in El Paso 
and in Douglas when the battles upon the adjacent Mexican terri- 
tory gave rise to wounds upon xlmerican soil. Afternoon papers 
of El Paso published on the 8th, 9th, and 10th days of May, 1911, are 
also appended to further illustrate, by contemporaneous reports, 
the happenings of those days as they relate to the subject of these 
claims. 

The brief submitted by Col dwell and Sweeney, attorneys for the 
claimants, Griffiths and Chandler, is also made an appendix hereto. 
This brief was adopted by the other attorneys as expressing their 
view of the law and the reasoning applicable to all the El Paso 
claims in so far as its citations and its arguments are of general 
application. 

In this brief the argument is advanced that Mexico was wholly 
unjustified in carrying on active warfare when its natural result 
would be to endanger life on our soil by the falling of bullets thereon. 
And the conclusion is sought to be drawn that since Mexico's action 
is indefensible from the standpoint of international law the damages 
allowed should be great, including not merely compensation but 
something beyond to deter for the future. 

It seems plain, however, that the right of a State to defend itself 
is fundamental and inferior to no other. In the case now under 
consideration the established government was threatened and in 
danger. On the one hand it was fighting in self-defense for its con- 
tinued existence, while on the other was a revolutionary party striv- 
ing to overthrow it. The right of a State to change its government 
when it is alleged to be oppressive or otherwise unresponsive to the 
needs of the people is also a well-established dictum in the law of 
nations. Both parties to the conflicts at Juarez and at Agua Prieta 
were therefore engaged in a contest about the theoretical right of 
which, in an international sense, there can be no doubt. Both of 
these places were important to the combatants, as both lie at the 
gateway of railroads penetrating the country and both have custom- 
nouses where revenue is to be collected. It was highly important 



12 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 

to the rebels to take and hold these towns; it was of the utmost im- 
portance to the Diaz Government, fighting for its life, not to permit 
this. The commission, in view of these facts, has no doubt that 
Mexico must be held within her sovereign rights when she fought 
to retain possession, as against armed rebellion, of both Juarez and 
Agua Prieta. If the situation as between Mexico and the United 
States were reversed and this Government found itself assailed by 
armed rebels avowing the purpose of overthrowing the established 
order of things, and its border cities were besieged, nobody can 
doubt that attack would be met by defense, let the bullets fall where 
they might. What we should undoubtedly claim for ourselves 
right we must admit as right in our neighboring States. But when 
a State in the exercise of its sovereign rights of self-defense has been 
compelled to inflict injuries as incidental thereto upon a neighbor- 
ing and friendly power, prompt expressions of regret and proi 
atonement in so far as money indemnity can atone are to be expected. 

It is believed that the views just expressed are in accord with our 
own diplomatic history, as several incidents illustrate. When the 
Caroline, in the year 1837, was attacked and destroyed in a harbor 
of New York State by agents of Great Britain, the case was much 
less urgent than at El Paso or Douglas and all the attendant circum- 
stances less calculated to justify the territorial invasion. But in the 
subsequent correspondence we find the plea of self-defense as the 
only one, and its force in an appropriate case apparently admit 
by our Government, though not in the particular case. 

Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, said of this transaction : 

The President sees with pleasure that your lordship fully admits those great 
principles of public law applicable ~to cases of this kind, which this Govern- 
ment has expressed, and that on your part, as on ours, respect for the in- 
violable character of the territory of independent States is the most essential 
foundation of civilization. And while it is admitted on both sides that tl i 
are exceptions to this rule, he is gratified to find that your lordship adi 
that such exceptions must come within the limitations stated and the terms 
used in a former communication from this department to the British pi en 
tentiary here. Undoubtedly it is just that, while it is admitted that except 
growing out of the great law of self-defense do exist, these exceptions sh< 
be confined to cases in which the " necessity of that self-defense is inst 
overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." 

Understanding these principles alike., the difference between the two Goven 
ments is only whether the facts in the case of the Caroline make out a case of 
such necessity for the purpose of self-defense. 

On our side practically the same principle was asserted when Gen. 
Jackson, in 1819, invaded Florida, then a dependency of Spain. Th 
ground broadly stated was that such invasion was the only practicable 
way to put an end effectively to the Indian depredations on t 
frontier. 

And in reference to the Mexican boundary itself our Government 
has taken the position in times past that if the only effectual waj 
stop Indian raids upon our people and their property was to pursue 
them across the border into Mexico, that course would be followed, 
unless the Mexican Government took effective measures to prevent 
its soil from being made a base of operations against us and a haven 
of refuge in case of pursuit by our forces. 

The ground upon which this position rests is simply that the right 
of self-defense rose superior in the particular circumstances to the 
right of territorial inviolability. 



CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 13 

The commission, therefore, believes that Mexico, while justified by 
the extreme circumstances in fighting upon the immediate border, is 
bound to feel regret and make amends to those particular individuals 
who incidentally suffered from her action. And as to the sufferers 
who are American citizens, the commission believes it to be clearly 
the duty of their Government to urge the justice of a prompt and 
liberal settlement upon the Government of Mexico. It seems super- 
fluous to make citations or undertake argument with the purpose of 
justifying this conclusion. The duty of Governments to see that 
their citizens when damaged by foreign governments should be given 
justice is too well established in our own diplomatic history and 
through the long list of international claims commissions to be now 
questioned. Mexico herself has impliedly admitted her liability by 
offering compensation, after its own investigation, in a number of 
these cases. These offers were rejected in all cases except one for the 
reason that the amount offered seemed to the claimant too small. 
But the fact that an attempt at settlement was thus made by the 
accredited agent of the Mexican Government is here cited as an ac- 
knowledgment by that Government of its liability for the injuries 
arising from its military operations at Juarez and Agua Prieta. In 
the one case actually settled — that of Mrs. Jennie M. Preston — the 
amount paid the claimant may be taken as in some degree a measure 
by which other amounts could be assessed. But in all cases the com- 
mission has endeavored to take into consideration the age, state of 
th, earning capacity, and degree of permanent disability, if any, 
in arriving at the amount of the damage assessed. 

There is some evidence that the Mexican Government took the 
ground, in its own investigation through its consular agents, that the 
doctrine of contributory negligence might be invoked as going to 
lessen the amount of compensation, or, perhaps, to defeat the claim 
altogether. 

There can be no doubt that many spectators on the American side 
were drawn by curiosity to points of advantage from which to view 
the conflicts on the other side. But curiosity is a human quality and 
criminal, and not even censurable in many cases. The sight of 
a battle is one not often presented to the citizen in his own home and 
amidst his usual daily vocations. That he should pause to see so 
strange and so rare a sight, or even that he should seek an advanta- 
geous point from which to view it, is not surprising. It must be 
le in mind, too, in this connection, that few if any of these people 
lad any realizing sense of the danger to which they were exposed by 
flying bullets. The commission concluded, therefore, that these spec- 
tators were where they had a right to be in their own country, that 
7 did not fully, if at all, understand their danger, and that it does 
not lie in the mouth of the responsible foreigner to present this phase 
of the matter by way of escaping or mitigating his accountability. 
tty much any person anywhere about El Paso and Douglas was 
ixposed to danger on the days when these adjacent fights were under 
way, and it is too nice a question ever to be determined satisfactorily 
as to whether or in what degree a particular wound might be as- 
cribed to the indulgence of curiosity. Upon this point, however, the 
views of the commission are not unanimous. 

In regard to the claims brought before the commission by domi- 
ciled aliens it will be seen that all have been heard as required by tho 



14 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 

terms of the joint resolution, and the amount of damage assessed will 
be found for each case in the special report devoted to that case. 

The commission, however, does not believe that these claims are of 
a class to be presented to the United States Government for settle- 
ment, or through that Government to Mexico. These claimants are 
not citizens of the United States. Their paramount allegiance is 
not to this Government. It is conceivable that the country of their 
origin might call them home, arm, and require them to fight against 
the United States. Nowhere is it suggested that the injuries out of 
which these claims spring are attributable to the United States Gov- 
ernment or to acts or omissions of its agents. The United States, 
therefore, can not be appealed to as to the party responsible for t < 
injuries. In what capacity, then, can this Government be called upon 
to entertain these claims? Evidently only as the Government owing 
a duty of protection to the claimants as the victims of wrongs in- 
flicted by another nation. Upon this point it seems clear from the 
weight of authority that this duty of protection is reciprocal with 
the obligations of allegiance and service. These domiciled aliens 
(all but one being of Mexican origin) owe no duty of service to this 
Government, and such allegiance as is due from them to the United 
States is of a qualified and subordinate character. Their claim to 
compensation, if any, is upon Mexico; and the naked question pre- 
sented here is whether the duty of pressing those claims upon Mexico 
for settlement devolves upon the country of domicile or that of citi- 
zenship. Upon this question the great weight of authority and of 
reason seems to this commission to be against the country of domicile 
and hence we feel precluded from recommending them favorably. 

Some of these claimants had filed their declaration of intention b 
become naturalized citizens of the United States, and one has, since 
the injury was received, completed his naturalization and is now < 
citizen. But the claim relates back to the status existing at the time 
of the injury. The proposition, as the commisison understands it, 
is for this Government to intervene between these domiciled aliens 
and (except in the case of one Chinese) their own Government for 
the purpose of securing justice as between those parties. 

Upon the general proposition that citizenship is prerequisite to 
such intervention reference is made to the general practice of 
State Department and to the cases cited in Moore's Digest of Iin 
national Law, sections 979 and 980, volume 6, pages 628 to 636. 
citations from our diplomatic correspondence, made in section 981 
of the same work, are particularly apposite to these claims. 

In declining to present a diplomatic claim to the Government of 
Austria, Mr. Marcy said: 

The wrong you complain of was done more than six years before you we 
citizen of the United States, and while you were a subject of the Emperor of 
Austria. The application you make seems to require this Government to inter- 
pose in a matter between the Austrian Government and one of its subjects. 
That was the practical relation when the act complained of took place. It can 
not, therefore, be said to be an injury done to one of our citizens, but only 
person who several years afterwards became a citizen of the United States. 
(Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, Aug. 26, 1856.) 

By adopting a foreigner, under any form of naturalization, as a citizen, this 
Government does not undertake the patronage of a claim which he may have 
upon the country of his original allegiance or upon any other government. To 
admit that he can charge it with this burden would allow him to call upon i 
dozen governments in succession, to each of which he might transfer hi£ 
allegiance, to urge his claim. Under such rule the government supposed to be 



CLAIMS GKOWING OUT OF ISTSURKECTIOlSr IN MEXICO. 15 

indebted could never know when the discussion of a claim would cease. All 
governments are therefore interested in resisting such pretensions. (Mr Fish, 
Secretary of State, May 16, 1871.) 

Where a person, who was naturalized in the United States in 1874, asked for 
diplomatic intervention in order to obtain the restoration of his property which 

as embargoed in Cuba in 1871, the Department of State said: "When your 
alleged injuries took place you were not a citizen of the United States, and 

.refore, under well-established canons of international law, it is not within 
the province of this Government to inquire whether your property was wrong- 
fully or rightfully taken. It would be a monstrous doctrine, which this Gov- 

, . ment would not tolerate for a moment, that a citizen of the United States 
- lo might deem himself injured by the authorities of the United States or of 
any State could, by transferring his allegiance to another power, confer upon 
these powers the right to inquire into the legality of the proceedings by which 
he may have been injured while a citizen." (Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, 
Apr. 8, 1874.) 

Subsequent naturalization does not alter the international status of a claim 
\~Mch accrued before naturalization. (Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, Apr. 
1S86.) 

The case of Santangelo, reported in volume 3, Moore International 
Arbitrations, is exactly in point with the Chinese case here, and if 
this precedent is followed the United States will refuse to urge this 
case as well as those of the other domiciled strangers of Mexican 
ligin. It is true that Santangelo's injury occurred in Mexican ter- 
Mory, while this happened upon our soil; but in neither case is there 
- y imputation of laches or wrongdoing upon the part of our Gov- 

tment, such as might fasten upon it a special obligation to see the 
w vong repaired. 

Upon the other side of this question may be cited the cases of Jarr 
and Hurst, one a native of Denmark, the other of Norway, who had 

;ome domiciled in the United States and had declared their inten- 
tion to become citizens of the United States. In this condition they 
shipped as sailors on an American vessel and the injuries of which 
they complained were received in the Port of Acapulco, Mexico. 
I fader a convention which authorized the claims of American and 
Mexican citizens only to be considered by the commission, the claims 
i these parties were heard, though subsequently dismissed upon 
other grounds. Here it will be observed that the claims were not 
against the country of origin. But in any case the decision of the 
: mmission, while conclusive in those cases, appears to run against 
the great current of authority. 

In addition to what has been said, it may be well to point out that 
inconvenient precedents might be made if our Government should un- 

rtake to champion the cause of domiciled strangers in a question 
primarily between themselves and the Government of their origin 
ir d paramount allegiance. It will hardly be maintained that these 
parties have the option of looking to either the Government of their 
domicile or that of their citizenship as they may select for protection 
and compensation in circumstances like these. If it is our duty as a 
Government to look after these damages it can not be Mexico's at the 
same time and in the same sense. Now, we have many American 
citizens domiciled in Mexico, doing business there, living there, and 
the number promises to increase indefinitely. Will it do for the 

lited States to take, in these current cases, a position which may 
be cited in the future as throwing upon the country of their domicile 
the ultimate duty of protecting these citizens and by strong implica- 
tion forbidding the exercise of that function to our Government ? 



16 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 

From every point of view, then, it is believed that the United 
States, not being responsible for these injuries through any omissions 
or acts of its own, should not take upon itself the duty of settling 
these claims or of urging their settlement upon Mexico. 

In assessing the amount of damage, the commission has endeav- 
ored to arrive at compensation only ; exemplary or punitive dam; 
being regarded as not called for in view of all the circumstances 
rounding the injuries. It can never be shown with absolute certainty 
that these injuries were inflicted bj^ bullets from the Mexican s 
but the weight of probability is so overwhelmingly in support of i 
view, when all the attendant circumstances are considered, as to c 
pel its adoption and justify our Government in acting upon it a^ 
established fact in each of these cases. The commission visited 
locality where each wound was alleged to have been received 
found the place in every instance to be within the field of fire 
otherwise so situated as to make the infliction of the injury easily 
possible. 

There follows a table showing the names of claimants, nationality, 
amount claimed, amount assessed, and the amount recommended as 
being, in the opinion of the commission, justly due the claimant. 

F. J. Kernan, 
Lieutenant Colonel and Adjutant Genera 
Eli A. Helmick, 
Major and Inspector General. 
A. Moreno, 
First Lieutenant, Twenty -eighth United, States Infantry 



After the foregoing report had been completed, as well as all ihe, 
special reports upon the particular claims therein referred to, and 
about 10 a. m. on November 29, Mr. Richard Brown, accompar 
by his attorney, Mr. R. V. Bowden, came before the commission and 
asked to have his case heard, saying that all the evidence was imme- 
diately available. Accordingly, it was heard, and the special report 
thereon is herewith added to those already completed. 

The commission tried to verify the existence of certain original 
affidavits said to be on file in the State Department, copies of which 
are herewith attached to the claimant's petition, but it was found t 
the originals had been forwarded to the City of Mexico. 

Taking this claimant's statement of facts in his case, as set out 
in his petition and as amplified under oath before the commission as 
correct and complete, we are convinced that he has no claim which 
the United States, should undertake to settle or to urge upon the 
Mexican Government for settlement. The considerations advanced 
for rejecting as valid the Converse and Blatt claims apply here. The 
original capture and detention by Mexican Federal authorities of this 
claimant at Guadalupe, Mexico, was entirely justified under the laws 
of war. The claimant had no credentials upon his person to exer 
him from capture. He wore a brassard, but any spy or enemy may 
resort to such a ruse, and it is by no means conclusive proof of the 
party being what he may claim to be. To hold otherwise would put a 
combatant wholly at the mercy of an enemy who saw fit to assume, 
the better to carry out a hostile purpose, any innocent garb and 
character. The fact that the claimant was unarmed is unimportant; 



CLAIMS GROWING OUT OP INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 17 

the fact that he was carrying letters from the public enemy was cir- 
cumstances so suspicious as alone to justify his arrest and a full in- 
vestigation into his character and present purposes. 

That he was subjected to harsh treatment may excite sympathy in 
view of the humanitarian motives under which he was acting in 
Mexico, but those who enter a foreign country must always run some 
risk of finding in the customs, judicial and otherwise, of that country 
many things unlike what they are accustomed to expect at home. 
The fare and the filth of the jails may be deplorable, but it was the 
jail of the country, in which native Mexicans as well as foreigners 
were alike imprisoned. 

Much emphasis is laid upon the fact that in carrying this prisoner 
from Guadalupe to Juarez the rurales passed along a road which at 
times wanders over the border and pursues for short distances its 
route upon American soil. Let it be conceded that for armed 
Mexicans to cross into our territory without the permission of our 
Government is to affront our sovereignty, it is still the fact that the 
wrong is a public one, and that it does not per se ground in this 
claimant a claim for damages. The public wrong would be the same 
if the armed party had carried no prisoner with it. By undertak- 
ing a horseback journey of 80 miles alone and without proper cre- 
dentials, through the theater of hostile operations, and bearing 
letters of msurrecto origin, this claimant opened the way for his own 
arrest and detention until those who held him were fully satisfied of 
his conduct and purposes, and this commission does not believe the 
rovernment of the United States rests under any obligation to fur- 
er consider his claim. If compensation may be thought due him, 
t should arise, not as an international obligation, but as a debt of 
gratitude and good conscience from the present Government of 
Mexico to Mr. Brown because of his services in behalf of the forces 
and the people of that country. 

F. J. Kern an, 
Lieutenant Colonel and Adjutant General. 

Eli A. Helmick, 
Major and Inspector General. 

A. Moreno, 
First Lieutenant, Twenty-eighth United States Infantry. 



ADDENDUM TO CASE OF WONG KONG. 

In this case the commission recognized a difference in the facts 
is compared with the other cases involving domiciled Mexican 

*. Z S S ' • P resented a situation where not onlv were the American 
and Mexican Governments concerned, but China"' as well. The claim- 
int, Wong Kong, long before the commission was created, had 
■eturned to his native land and was residing there during this investi- 
gation and since. If the United States, through acts of its agents 
or its people, had been in any way responsible for this man's iniurv 
a duty to make reparation would be plain ; but since the damage was 
me to acts committed by Mexicans and originating in Mexican 
erntory, the commission was of the opinion that this Government 
vould have discharged its full duty in the premises if, after ascer- 
taining the facts as has been done, they were brought to the attention 
H. Rept. 361..66-1 2 



18 CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF INSURRECTION IN MEXICO. 

of the Chinese Government. There was no doubt about the claimai 
injury or of his entire innocence in respect thereto; but the com- 
mission believes that the duty of seeking indemnity for Wong 
Kong's wrong rests primarily upon the country of his citizenship 
and allegiance and present residence rather than upon the country 
in which he happened to have received his injury, but to which no 
direct responsibility is imputed. 

F. J. Kernan, 
Adjutant General, for the Commission. 



Statement showing the claims examined by the commission organised pursuant 
to joint resolution of Congress, approved Aug. 9, 1912. 



Name and nationality. 



Nature of claim. 



Date and place. 



Amount 
claimed 



A mount 
of dam- 
age as- 
sessed 
by the 
commis- 
sion. 



Amo 

of in- 
deim 

reco 
mended 

by the 
commis- 
sion. 



Lawrence F. Con- 
verse, American. 



Edward M. Blatt, 
American. 

Adolfo Varela, Amer- 
ican. 

Virginia Moorhcad, 
American. 

Abundio Soto, Amer- 
ican. 

Edwin Q. TTeaton, 
American . 

Celia Griffiths, Amer- 
ican. 

A. R. Chandler, 
American. 

Rita Garcia, Mexican. 

Francisco Portillo, 
Mexican. 

Evarista Alarcon, 
Mexican. 

Isabel Lara de Gar- 
cia, Mexican. 

Francisca Arredando 
(Encarnacion Arre- 
dando), Mexican. 

Dolores Dominguez, 
Mexican. 

Barnardino Hernan- 
dez, Mexican. 

Wong Kong, Chinese. 

Emma Larson, Amer- 
ican. 

Elmer E. Crowe, 
American. 

Francis F. Williams, 
American. 

John W. Keate, 
American. 

Joseph W. Harring- 
ton, American. 

William R. White, 
American. 



Kidnaping in United 
States territory 
and detention in 
Mexico. 

do 



Tomillo, Tex., Feb. 
20, 1912. 



.do. 



Gunshot wound to 

daughter. 
Gunshot wound 

through body. 
Gunshot wound 

to wife. 
Gunshot wound 

through leg. 
Death of husband 

by gunshot wound. 
Death of son by 

gunshot wound. 
Death of husband 

by gunshot wound 
Gunshot wound 

through arm. 
Death of husband 

by gunshot wound 
Death of daughter 

by gunshot wound 
Gunshot wound to 

Francisca Arre- 

.dando. 
Death of brother by 

gunshot wound. 
Gunshot wound 

through hand and 

arm. 
Gunshot wound 

through jaw. 
Personal injuries. . . 

Gunshot wound 

through body. 
do 



El Paso, Tex., May 

9, 1911. 
El Paso, Tex., May 

8, 1911. 

El Paso, Tex., May 

9, 1911. 

El Paso, Tex., May 

8, 1911, 
....do 

....do 



.do. 



Gunshot wound 

through foot. 
Death of brother by 

gunshot wound. 
Gunshot wound 

through leg. 



El Paso, Tex., 

10. 1911. 
El Paso, Tex., 

9, 1911. 
El Paso, Tex., 

10, 1011. 
El Paso, Tex., 

9, 1911. 

El Paso, Tex., 

10, 1911. 
El Paso, Tex., 

9, 1911. 

El Paso, Tex., 

10, 1911. 
Douglas, Ariz. 

17, 1911. 
Douglas, Ariz. 

13,1911. 
Douglas, Ariz. 

17,' 1911. 
do 



May 
May 
May 
May 

May 

May 

May 
Apr. 
Apr. 
Apr. 



Douglas, Ariz. 

13, 1911. 
do , 



Apr. 



$50,000.00 

50,000.00 
15, 000. 00 
15,000.00 
6,000.00 
10,614.78 
50, 000. 00 
50,000.00 
25, 000. 00 
15,000.00 
40,000.00 
12,000.00 
25,000.00 

20,000.00 
20,000.00 

20,000.00 
2,500.00 
20,000.00 
50,000.00 
5,000.00 
30,000.00 
50,000.00 



Nothing. 

Nothing. 

$3, 000. 00 
3, 000. 00 
4, 000. 00 
2,000.00 

15,000.00 

12,000.00 
6, 500. 00 
2, 000. 00 

3,500.00 
6, 500. 00 
3,000.00 

6, 500. 00 
4,000.00 

5,000.00 
1,000.00 
5,000.00 
5,000.00 
4,000.00 
15,000.00 
2,000.00 



Not! 

Nothing. 
S8,0f».0fl 

3,000.00 

4,000.00 

2,000.00 

115,000.00 

'12,000.00 

Nothing. 

Nothing. 

Nothing. 

Nothing. 

Nothing. 

Nothing 
Nothing. 

Notr 
1,00 

5,000.00 
5,000.00 
4,000.00 

315,000.00 
2,000.00 



581,114.78 111,000.00 



71,00 ' 



i $32,000 recommended bv one member. » $22,000 recommended by one member. 

» $25,000 recommended by one member. 



o 



